We were there to talk publication and how it interacts with today's design practices. We began down that path but somehow it turned into a discussion of new vs. old media. This is an interesting discussion as long as it does not become a question of either/or. What is most interesting is to try to discuss what all these media can do for you.

For example, I find archinect most interesting when it does projects like MAPA and the Wiki experiment. Those projects tried to harness the power of the medium to do projects beyond their medium. In both cases the audience works along side editors (blurring the distinction) to create content that have palpable results.

Similarly, trays tries to interact with its audience. The editorial process is basically there guiding our audience to help us come up with most pertinent and appropriate work. The audience thus becomes an active part of the editorial process.

Furthermore, trays wants to expand the type of media used to reach its audience(s). We are about to print our first zine for the ecological urbanism conference. We are also in talks to start working on other media, from serious print to not-so-serious blogs. The goal is to fully emerge our audience giving them an active role and a stake in their media outlets.

All this to say that to me it is not a question of either/or, but rather both/and. After all blogs, on-line journals, forums, print magazines, zines DO different, if at times overlapping, things. All this media together, however, can provide a full experience and decentralize an audience's voice (in trays' case, the student body). In a school (and profession) where hierarchies can be rigid, decentralization can in itself be a radical act.

Big thanks to Mimi for the invitation and great moderation and to the other panelists for the interesting conversation.